Jump to content

Talk:Marc-Antoine Charpentier

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dates established

[edit]

The Library of Congress authorities website has a recent citation:

New Grove, 2nd ed. WWW site, Feb. 5, 2002 (Charpentier, Marc-Antoine; b. in or near Paris, 1643; d. Paris, Feb. 24, 1704; the year of Charpentier's birth, long uncertain, has been determined convincingly, if without explicit documentation, by Patricia Ranum (1987)).

Is this sufficient to change the dates? Let me know. FeanorStar7

By all means change. I was using the 1980 New Grove (actually, never did finish writing this article). Thanks! Antandrus 07:52, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am the person who found the notarial act stating his age:(he was "18 or thereabouts" when his father died in December 1661. This permits one to deduce the year of his birth as 1643. "Thereabouts" in notarial documents is not a sign that the family was uncertain about someone's age. Rather, it should be taken to mean that he had celebrated his 18th birthday relatively recently and was not yet 19. Imprecision was essential because the date of the actual birth was usually not recorded. It was the date of the baptism --- which generally followed birth by 1 or 2 days --- that was entered into the parish records. This birth date is, incidentally, corroborated by the fact that, in the fall of 1662, he enrolled in the Law Faculty of Paris (see my website, www.ranumspanat.com), something one generally did at 18 or 19, at the end of one's studies in the "college". Patricia M. Ranum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.161.41 (talk) 17:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not quite sure where to insert the following link, where I discuss in detail his birth year

http://www.ranumspanat.com/birthdate.html Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, scratch that: I see it was already added in the links at the end.Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Two Portraits on the page

[edit]

The 1682 engraving is the likely portrait of Charpentier as the engraving was made in 1682 and it reflects the actual clothing and wig of the time. Why scholars think it is Charpentier is because in the larger version of the engraving the man is holding a sheet of Charpentier's music, and it is not likely anyone else would be holding his sheet music in this type of portrait. Now, the second painting, if you go to the website about it questions the validity of the portrait or at the very least it is not from Charpentier's period. For example, the clothing and wig style are not from the 1690s. The portrait looks more like a scholar's fashion and hair from 1660s. The age of the man in the portrait and his clothing would not have been Charpentier at that age at that time. Azalea pomp 08:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the person who wrote the online page with the "new" watercolor portrait of Charpentier. am replying to Azalea's comments, because they either misquote me, or else they show minimal knowledge of French culture during the period 1670-1700. First of all, I point out that the portrait and wig style are exactly the style shown in portraits of the 1690s (to which I added that the shaved-off moustache likewise represents a change from the style of the 1680s to the style of the 1690s, as exemplified in Louis XIV himself. I also pointed out that the age of the man in the watercolor portrait conforms to Charpentier's age circa 1690, that is, in his late 40s or early 50s (his gaunt features suggest the gravity of an serve illness documented in 1683). Neither clothing nor coiffure suggest the 1660s in any way at all! At least "Azalea" is convinced by the b/w engraving of the composer fully a decade before the watercolor portrait. Actually, I am not "questioning the validity of the portrait" on my website: any scholar will immediately realize that I am about 99% convinced that the watercolor represents Charpentier, but I cannot possibly state it as a fact -- any more than I have ever dared assert that the b/w "Mr. Charpentier" is Marc-Antoine: again, it is circumstantial. But historians are generally convinced, and they can read between the lines. Why is the watercolor on paper from circa 1750? The most likely --- but of course unprovable --- reason is that for his personal gallery of illustrious musicians, someone had a series of portraits done from "authentic" representations.To summarize: the watercolor of the mid-18th century is a later copy of an existing portrait painted in the 1690s (witness the hair and the age of the composer), almost certainly from an oil painting of the composer owned by his sister (and inherited by his nephew in 1709): family portraits, without the name of a specific person, are mentioned in the sister's death inventory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.247.22.45 (talk • contribs)
The second portrait (the one in color, not the engraving), does not have the wig style of 1690s. The 1690 wig is very large with a part in the middle with relatively two relatively high points. 1690s wigs are even taller than 1680s wigs. The engraving wig is still much higher than the presumed portrait hair. So this portrait does not reflect the wig fashion of that era. It is much much too low. Any French gentleman of this era would not have a hairstyle which is found in this portrait. The type of hair in this portrait is more consistent with hairstyles from the 1660s. As well, the collar he is wearing was not worn after 1665, the collar being replaced by the cravat. The engraving of Charpentier which is a from the era is what Charpentier would have worn at court. For a portrait in the 1690s, Charpentier would have worn something similar to Lully or Purcell in their portraits, probably a robe with and a relatively relaxed neck area which seemed to be popular with artists then. Azalea pomp (talk)

The major revisions I have made, late March 2009

[edit]

I'm one of the 2 biographers of Charpentier. At first I tried to keep as much of the original Wikipedia article as possible. Gradually it became clear that once I began a chronological presentation of his out-put, with the changes in content that came with each new period, the original had to be tossed out. (For example, it listed his works more or less globally, irrespective of the time slot; and it mingled things for Mlle de Guise with things for the Jesuits, etc.) I hope I haven't hurt someone's feelings. I can guarantee that once typos and style have been honed by the Wiki administrators, this article will be a very reliable condensation of what is known about Charpentier as of late 2008. I don't plan to do anything with his works themselves. (I deal only with his life and why a specific work was written in the first place), so please go ahead and make articles like the "David et Jonathas" one! (Actually, I see I am the person who wrote the 2 sections above! Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 20:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still "Start" category?

[edit]

I hope this no longer fits the "Start" category. I could go on for pages, but I have tried not to. Barring a few tidbits that almost certainly will come to mind in the days to come, this is now a very comprehensive article (as far as the biography section is concerned). If the adminstrators or readers want more, I'll be glad to oblige. Just tell me what might be added.Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 20:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about the administrators, they are here only to give technical assistance and deal with misbehaviour. They are volunteers like all of us, and in no way privileged in content questions. I am a great fan of Charpentier, and delighted that a real expert is rewriting his article. If you want to improve it even more and give it some prominence, you could try to get it featured. This would make it appear on Wikipedia's main page once for 24 hours, and permanently at Wikipedia:Featured articles. It seems that so far the closest approximations to a featured article on a baroque composer are Josquin des Prez, Mozart family grand tour and Mozart in Italy. Quite embarrassing, actually.
The process for getting an article featured once it satisfies the WP:Featured article criteria can be a bit stressful and isn't always as amicable as the discussion at WP:Featured article candidates/Josquin des Prez. If this nevertheless sounds like something you might be interested in, I recommend reading this essay by one of our most prolific content contributors. But obviously it's a lot of work (though certainly not as much as writing a book).
There are two standard methods for making other editors give you feedback on an article: WP:Peer review and nomination as a WP:Good article. (But only one should be used at a time.)
I am never really sure about classifications on the quality scale. The next class after Start class would be B class like Jean-Baptiste Lully, Henry Purcell, Johann Pachelbel, Johann Sebastian Bach, Georg Philipp Telemann and George Frideric Handel. This looks about right to me, but one would have to check the criteria detailed at the bottom of Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers/Assessment. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since User:Magicpiano recently reassessed the B class composers articles, I asked them to have a look. See here for the response. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Since I have an editorial project hanging over me and the date when it falls upon me is uncertain, I'll delay even thinking about this until fall! Meanwhile, there is another question in my mind about this sort of article in general: How long should an article about a musician be? I have been as brief as possible throughout, but could write more and more. Patricia M. Ranum (talk) 17:31, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That statement to the effect that this article needs footnoting and citations is nonsense!

[edit]

It's been quite a while since I added footnotes and citations to this article. I'm the world specialist in Charpentier's life, and though I could add several dozen more notes, I believe that other scholars will agree that what I have added more than suffices.

This discourages me from contributing to Wikipedia! That big, critical banner across the top of the page is no longer appropriate and has not been for months. When someone like me has clearly stated in her own talk page, that the article is now reliably and more-than-adequately footnoted, Wikipedia should at least investigate that assertion and if it's correct (as mine was), remove the really offensive yellow banner!

And yes, I did not log in because I want people to know publicly how disappointed I am in Wikipedia. Patricia M. Ranum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.67.63.30 (talk) 16:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again -- that's just one of those irritating things about Wikipedia. Maintenance banners stay forever unless you remove them yourself. Here is an example:

 

 This is an editorial template, and therefore the editor who inserted it here is God. Unlike ordinary text, that anyone can delete at will, an editorial template cannot absolutely be deleted except after an express written authorization by Jim Wales, the sacrifice of three goats and a young virgin maiden, and consensus approval by the Editorial Template Designers Syndicate. After all, editors who are unwilling to contribute to Wikipedia are entitled to have fun with it, too. (August 2009)

 

(Courtesy of this sublime page). Antandrus (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Antandrus! Glad you are still there. I've been busy with other projects. PMR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.179.253 (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Marc-Antoine Charpentier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marc-Antoine Charpentier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Marc-Antoine Charpentier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marc-Antoine Charpentier. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Marc-Antoine_Charpentier&oldid=1206628199"